See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228528880

The Hegemony of Play

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
73 2,820

4 authors:

Janine Fron Tracy Fullerton

(art)n University of Southern California
7 PUBLICATIONS   100 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   447 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jacquelyn Ford Morie Celia Pearce

All These Worlds, LLC Georgia Institute of Technology
92 PUBLICATIONS   1,061 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   1,434 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Virtual Augmented Mixed Reality for Health and Wellness View project

Journal of Virtual Creativity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jacquelyn Ford Morie on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Hegemony of Play
Published in Proceedings, DiGRA: Situated Play, Tokyo, September 24-27, 2007.
Janine Fron Tracy Fullerton
Ludica USC School of Cinematic Arts
Interactive Media Program
janine@ludica.org.uk
tfullerton@cinema.usc.edu
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we introduce the concept of a “Hegemony of
Play,” to critique the way in which a complex layering of
technological, commercial and cultural power structures
have dominated the development of the digital game
industry over the past 35 years, creating an entrenched
status quo which ignores the needs and desires of
“minority” players such as women and “non-gamers,” Who
in fact represent the majority of the population. Drawing
from the history of pre-digital games, we demonstrate that
these practices have “narrowed the playing field,” and
contrary to conventional wisdom, have actually hindered,
rather than boosted, its commercial success. We reject the
inevitability of these power structures, and urge those in
game studies to “step up to the plate” and take a more pro-
active stance in questioning and critiquing the status of the
Hegemony of Play.
Author Keywords
Games, game industry, gender, game production, game
development, media production.
WHAT IS THE HEGEMONY OF PLAY?
The term “Hegemony of Play” was coined during an April
2005 lecture by play expert Bernie DeKoven at the
Interactive Media program in USC’s School of Cinematic
Arts. During a heated debate following DeKoven’s
presentation, Ludica founders Fullerton and Pearce pointed
out the ways in which the exclusionary power structures of
the computer game industry have narrowed the conception
of both play and player in the digital sphere. Those who
rose to the defense of the industry cited the conventional
wisdom that the design of digital games is entirely driven
by the market for them. As the discussion progressed, it
became clear that there are at least three levels of
unexamined assumptions in this defense of the game
industry’s status quo. These assumptions are related to the
production process and environment for the creation of
digital games; to the evolution of technologies related to
play; and to the cultural positioning of games and “gamers.”
We have adopted the term “Hegemony of Play” in a non-
Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference
© 2007 Authors & Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA). Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed,
commercial use requires specific permission from the author.
Jacquelyn Ford Morie Celia Pearce
USC Institute for Creative Georgia Institute of Technology,
Technologies School of Literature, Communication
& Culture
morie@ict.usc.edu
celia.pearce@lcc.gatech.edu
ironic fashion to refer to the way in which the digital game
industry has influenced the global culture of play in much
the same way that hegemonic nations, such as the British
Empire or post-WWII America, have, in their times of
influence, dominated global culture. Today’s hegemonic
game industry has infused both individuals’ and societies’
experiences of games with values and norms that reinforce
that industry’s technological, commercial and cultural
investments in a particular definition of games and play,
creating a cyclical system of supply and demand in which
alternate products of play are marginalized and devalued.
The power elite of the game industry is a predominately
white, and secondarily Asian, male-dominated corporate
and creative elite that represents a select group of large,
global publishing companies in conjunction with a handful
of massive chain retail distributors. This hegemonic elite
determines which technologies will be deployed, and which
will not; which games will be made, and by which
designers; which players are important to design for, and
which play styles will be supported. The hegemony
operates on both monetary and cultural levels. It works in
concert with game developers and self-selected hardcore
“gamers,” who have systematically developed a rhetoric of
play that is exclusionary, if not entirely alienating to
“minority” players (who, in numerical terms, actually
constitute a majority) such as most women and girls, males
of many ages, and people of different racial and cultural
backgrounds. It is aided and abetted by a publication and
advertising infrastructure, characterized by game review
magazines, television programming and advertising that
valorizes certain types of games, while it marginalizes those
that do not fit the “hardcore gamer” demographic. These
attitudes prevail, in spite of the fact that inclusiveness has
produced some of the best-selling games in history, such as
Pac-Man, Myst, and The Sims. The Hegemony of Play is
the proverbial elephant in the living room, of which
everyone is aware, but which no one calls by name. Some
have critiqued it [2], [7], [12], but few have called attention
to or questioned its underlying power structures and raison
d’etre [6], [15], [23], [24].
We would like to submit that play, an innate human practice
and function, belongs to everyone, and in its digital
incarnations should not be controlled by a hegemonic elite.
We are calling for the game studies community to critique
rather than adopt and perpetuate the rhetoric of the
Hegemony of Play, and to explore new avenues of
inclusiveness and diversity. As scholars and educators, it is
our prerogative to do this; as designers and artists, our
mandate. We believe that as both researchers and
independent game designers, it is important to define and
better understand this hegemony, because it drives the
discourse of game studies, whether players and scholars
realize it or not. Particular ways that the hegemony of play
has had a role in shaping the trajectory of game studies
include:
• Because we often study games that are created by the
Hegemony of Play, we not only critique and analyze, but
also often embrace, valorize, and fetishize the cultural
production of the Hegemony of Play. Yet we seldom
analyze or critique the power structures from which they
emerge. These power structures shape us and our
discourse, and it behooves us to be more reflexive about
the ways in which they do.
• Because of its narrow market definitions, the Hegemony
of Play has driven the critical discourse of what is and is
not a game; games researchers have taken this up as a
matter of taxonomy, but deeply embedded in these
arguments have been inherent values of the video game
industry that are not necessarily inherent qualities of
games. Rigorous scholarship demands that we interrogate
and critique these values and assumptions rather than
taking them at face value.
• Due to the standard demographic of most video games,
the vast majority of player-centered research, whether
cognitive, behavioral, psychological or sociological,
whether quantitative or qualitative, concerns male
players; this fact is seldom, if ever, articulated. If the
player gender is called out, it is not considered of
consequence and generalizations are often made that
pertain primarily or exclusively to male players. We
would argue that it is important to articulate who the
players are, and make it clear who is being included and
excluded, for whatever reason.
• The notion of the “gamer” which has defined the rhetoric
of game marketing and fandom, has created a sub-culture
which is exclusionary and alienating to many people who
play games, but who do not want to be associated with
the characteristics and game play styles commonly
associated with “hardcore gamers.” This stereotype may
actually prevent some people from playing games
entirely. Anecdotally, we have found that female
students, even those who spend over 20 hours per week
playing videogames, are reluctant to term themselves
“gamers” precisely because of these connotations. In
addition, the market rationale of the gamer demographic
has given the game industry free reign to exercise a wide
2
variety of gender and racially discriminatory practices
and stereotyping, in both the workplace and in the
content they create, that would be unacceptable in any
other field.
We are not trying to suggest that game publishers or
developers are insincere. Rather we are trying to call
attention to the power structures that surround game
technologies, game production and game consumption.
These power structures perpetuate a particular set of values
and norms concerning games and game play, which tend to
subordinate and ghettoize minority players and play styles.
In fact, this status quo leaves many game developers
themselves feeling disaffected and disheartened—they see
the need for expanded markets, and also crave the
opportunity for more creativity and innovation. Many
designers bemoan the stranglehold that marketing
departments have on the trajectory of game design.
However, being trapped inside the power structures
themselves, they have too much at stake to precipitate a
revolutionary upheaval of the powers of play.
Our argument here, necessarily brief, will only introduce
the basic areas in which these power structures may be
found; more scholarship and critique is called for that is not
possible in a paper of this length. The areas of crisis we
have identified are: 1) the production process and
environment for the creation of digital games; 2) the
technologies of play, including the evolution of games from
folk traditions and cultural artifacts to industrial products
and intellectual property, and now to digital products and
virtual societies; and 3) the cultural positioning of games
and “gamers.”
Finally we argue through historical precedent and recent
scientific and marketing research that the alleged
relationship between commercial success and these
exclusionary rhetorics of “conventional wisdom” are in fact
incorrect, and we make a case that had the game industry
not engaged in these practices over the past thirty-five
years, its market would be much larger, and its revenues
much greater than they are today.
THE PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT
In 2005, the International Game Developers Association
commissioned a report and survey in order to understand
the demographic make-up of the game development
community. Its results were not surprising 88.5% of all
game development workers are male; 83.3% are white; 92%
are heterosexual. While the quantitative data culled in this
study reinforced what most people who have been intimate
with the game industry already knew, even more
informative was the qualitative data collected in the
comments ending the survey. Here are just a few examples
from among the first 20 of over 1000 comments [11]:
«The industry is not diverse. The people interested in
games and computers in general are not diverse. Most
 programmers are men - because men tend to like
programming more often than women do. Its just the way
it is.» - M, 24, White, Canada
«Games are made by White Males, for White Males. I'm
all for a diverse industry, it just isn't there. Marketing in
the entire industry is very poor. Games either make it or
don't, then copy the ones that do.» - M, 28, USA
«I don't think workforce diversity has anything to do with
making great games. Hiring should be based solely on
skills, work ethic and personality. Race, gender, sexual
orientation and ethnic background have NO bearing on
hiring policy.» - M, 35, White, USA
«The most qualified person should be hired, beyond that I
don't care what sexual preference, color, creed or any
other pop culture label they are.» - M, 26, White,
disabled, USA
Yet the very term “qualified,” as defined by the game
industry, is encoded to exclude experience in related areas,
such as educational software, or other entertainment media
such as film or theme parks. We have written elsewhere
[16] about the workplace and cultural issues surrounding
the need to attract more young women to the game industry,
but even when women or game designers that represent
minority play styles do enter the arena, it is often a struggle
to create content that is outside the current definitions of
successful game products. Brenda Laurel, an early game
industry pioneer and co-founder of the Game Developers
Conference reports:
Throughout my two decades in the computer game
business, I had ached for the chance to create
alternatives to the chasing, shooting, fighting, exploding,
hyper-male world of games. Why weren’t there any
computer games for girls? And why did I end up losing
my job every time I suggested it. It couldn’t be just a
sexist conspiracy. The boys’ game industry generated
billions of dollars; surely even the most virulent sexist in
Silicon Valley would be perfectly happy to reap the
corresponding millions from girls if he could figure out
how to do it. Nor was the male culture of computer games
simply an artifact of the history of the industry.
Something more complex and subtle was going on, and I
knew it had to do with the construction of gender in every
aspect of our lives—in play, identity, work, technology,
and business. [15]
Laurel was given just this opportunity in 1992, when she
was invited by David Liddle to propose a project for the
newly formed technology R&D Lab, Interval Research. The
two engaged in a discussion about girls and games. Liddle’s
assessment? “There’s a six billion dollar business with an
empty lot next door.” Liddle and Laurel “…agreed if this
were an easy problem, someone would have already solved
3
it. In sum, it had all the characteristics of a good research
problem—puzzling, consequential and complex.” This
conversation lead to the birth of Purple Moon, an early
venture into the “girl game” movement of the early 1990s.
Beleaguered by poor support and marketing, Purple Moon
had its plug pulled before being given adequate time to
build an audience [15]. Purple Moon is often held up as an
example as commercial failure that proves the rule. Little
credence is given to the fact that it still had a small and
adamant fan base even at its demise. Purple Moon was, in
short, gobbled up by the Hegemony of Play.
The few women who do manage to break into the
conventional male-dominated game–creation clubhouse
must struggle with the prevailing culture. For instance,
when successful female game producer Nour Polloni
insisted that the female leading character in a new game
wear baggy pants, she had difficulties negotiating with the
all-male creative team, who wanted to dress her in a string
bikini. [17] Virtually all of the women in the IGDA
comments supplement complained of the “boys-only”
ethos, and were well aware of game industry practices that
are alienating to women. These include the use of “booth
babes” at industry expos, excessive overtime, a lack of
work/life balance, and a general locker-room attitude that
pervades the workplace [11].
Remarkably, in spite of this, the Entertainment Software
Association (ESA) reports that 38% of gamers are women
[5]. Indeed, a number of recent studies have shown that -- in
direct contradiction with the conventional wisdom of those
who claim that games are designed in direct response to
market opportunities -- women, and particularly women
over forty, are the largest demographic for games. A study
on casual games commissioned by AOL for instance, found
that women over 40 spent the most time playing games of
any demographic group [26]. Yet many in the game
industry do not consider casual games to be “real” games
and thus discount the growing influence of women in the
games market.
Thus, it is clear that even though there is a market for
“minority” players and play styles, the production
environment of digital play is, for the most part, failing to
address these players. It is also obvious that these minority
players would, in fact, quickly become the majority of
players were their desires addressed by the game industry.
How to do this is a question that has been asked every so
often by the industry as a passing fad, often met by failure
because the standards of play and “gameness” that are
applied to these products during their development and
marketing are always those of these hegemonic structures.
Many companies and designers have come away from
attempts to reach these markets with the frustrated
conclusion that it cannot be done, that only “gamers” play
games. But is there a larger picture here? Is it possible that
the difficulty in producing “games for girls” or games for
adults, or games for “everyone” lies in the inherent
properties of the technology of digital games themselves?
Or are these hegemonic practices tied more to the
marketing and production process that has developed over
the past three decades?
THE TECHNOLOGIES OF PLAY
Videogames, unlike the other game types that preceded
them, represent a major shift in the role and power of the
player vs. the product. In the playground, an elaborate
ritual exists around negotiating and agreeing upon the rules
of engagement [19], [4]. Most card games begin with a
determination of what game will be played, and by which
rules. Tabletop role-playing and strategy games are often
accompanied by a Talmudic discourse of rules
interpretation. All of these practices give players the
ultimate power in determining how they shall play. It is
clear, from the traditional game players’ perspective, that
while they may have purchased some specialized
implements of play (such as a board with pieces or a deck
of cards) that the “game” does not come in the box, but is in
fact, an emergent experience “owned” in many ways by
themselves and their fellow players. Changing the game,
tweaking the rules, is always possible and “house rules” are
a common staple.
Videogames on the other hand both dictate and enforce
rules automatically through software. They also determine
which play styles shall be favored and which skill sets shall
be valorized, and create the unusual situation of a human
matching his or her wits with a machine. Much of mastery
in digital games entails ones ability to “beat” the computer
on its own terms; this puts the player who either cannot do
so, or has little interest in mastering the machine, at a
decided disadvantage. It is as if all of chess players were
required to play against IBM’s famed Big Blue rather than
matching wits against more fallible and infinitely more
interesting human opponents. The result would be a
generation of chess players trained to beat a machine. This
notion of playing with machines has forever altered the
concept of what a game is and has transformed players into
game consumers. Rather than determining if a game is good
enough for them, as Bernie DeKoven has proposed, players
now must prove they are good enough for the game. [4]
The hardware technologies of games have also tended to
advantage some forms of play while marginalizing others.
Players who are not as adept, for instance, with a console
controller, will be at a decided disadvantage. (Note that the
size of the original Xbox controller was awkward for both
women and children.) Recent studies have shown that due
to cognitive differences between males and females, games
that demand a high level of certain types of spatial rotation
skills, such as First Person Shooters, are actually more
difficult for women and girls to master [25]. By automating
these features and not allowing the player to modify or alter
for skills and play preferences, videogames create an
artificial boundary that often precludes the kind of “house
4
rules” adaptation that have been available throughout the
course of game history.
This approach to play is not inevitable; it is, rather, an
outgrowth of the way in which various technologies have
constructed our expectations of play, our ownership of the
games we participate in, and our relationship to other
players. By technologies, we mean more than merely
digital technologies. The transition from folk games, to
industrial games, to digital games has involved technologies
dating back to the printing press, and the assembly line.
Before the invention of the printing press, for example,
there were many variations of chess played throughout both
the Eastern and Western worlds. Some involved dice,
others a King that could leap over other pieces [21]. The
early chessboard featured a vizier, which during the Age of
Discovery and the rein of Queen Isabella, evolved into the
powerful Queen piece we see today [27]. As the powers of
Europe began to consolidate in the 16th century, so too did
the rules of chess -- printed and distributed as canon using
the most revolutionary technology of the day. What
McLuhan and others have called an “alphabetic monopoly”
created by the technology of the printing press changed the
multifaceted nature of the games collectively called
“chess,” and modern chess -- a standard set of pieces and
rules -- was born.
th th
The 19 and Early 20 Century Board Game Industry as
a Model for the Future?
While no one “owns” chess, the printing press would
change the “folk” nature of games, and in doing so, change
players’ relationship to the games they played. Where
games had once been flexible cultural traditions, moving
from player to player, region to region, absorbing new
rules, changing others, adapting to the immediate needs of
players without concern for consistency or commercial
value, now, they would become reproducible social
artifacts. It is not until the dawn of the industrial revolution
however, that games begin a more dramatic evolution from
reproducible social artifacts to commercial products. Board
and card games epitomized the industrial revolution in
America in a number of significant ways. First, they were a
response to the opportunity afforded by leisure time, a new
phenomenon of the middle class in late 19th Century
America; they were in a sense the first form of “home
entertainment.” Second, they took advantage of emerging
mass production methods and personnel. Third, their
marketing strategies and content provides unique insight
into the cultural concerns of the day [8]. A survey of early
games from the “golden age of board games,” roughly the
mid 1800s to the 1920s, prior to the introduction of radio,
shows the ways in which the game industry was both more
inclusive and in many respects more culturally relevant than
the video game industry is today.
 th th
The 19 and Early 20 Century Board Game Industry as The first board game ever to be awarded a patent was also
a Model for the Future? designed by a woman, Lizzie Magie, who originally
While much is made of the economic success of the video patented The Landlord Game in 1904 and again in 1924.
game industry, now estimated to be around $7 billion for (Figure 2)
software alone [5], its revenues pale in comparison to those
of board games. The Sims franchise, for instance, has sold Magie owned the patent until 1935 when it was purchased
60 million copies worldwide, and is the best-selling by Parker Brothers to make way for their upcoming hit
videogame of all time. Though unique in its cross-gender Monopoly, attributed to Charles Darrow, which would
appeal, these figures are dwarfed by the estimated 750 become the best-selling board game of all time. Unlike
million units of Monopoly sold worldwide. Granted Monopoly, The Landlord Game was actually an anti-
Monopoly has had a longer period to accrue this figure, an capitalism activist game designed to demonstrate how
example of what Chris Anderson calls a “long tail,” [1] tenants were exploited by land-owners [18], a theme that
while many popular video games seem to have chronically today might class it in the genre of “games for change.”
short shelf-lives. Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine any
video game rivaling these sales figures, even given a longer
gestation period. This comparison begs the question: Why
don’t video games sell more? A survey of the history and
culture of the board game provides a stark contrast to that of
computer games, demonstrating how the video game
industry has represented, in many ways, a major setback for
play as a component of everyday life, for people of every
age, race, gender, and socio-economic class.

Although most of the early board game companies were

owned and run by men, women played an integral part in
the emerging culture of board games at every level. In fact,
the 19th Century board game industry actually had a higher
percentage of female contributors than today’s digital game
business. Significantly, two early and influential board
games were designed by women. The first known American
board game, The Mansion of Happiness, was designed by
Anne Abbott of Beverly, Mass, a clergyman’s daughter,
also inventor of the Authors, a literary card game played by
the characters in Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women, which
remained popular into the 1960s. Originally published by
The W. & S.B. Ives Company of Salem, Mass, it was re-
published in 1894 by Parker Bros. A major commercial
success, Mansion of Happiness was a typical genre of the
day: a game that taught life lessons. (Figure 1) Players
attempted to reach the Mansion of Happiness at the center
of the board by traversing squares of virtue, such as
Honesty and Temperance, and avoiding temptation, such as
Poverty and Perjury [8], [18].
Figure 1: The Mansion of Happiness was the first board game
published in America; a smash hit, it was later re-released by
Parker Bros. (shown) (From the Liman Collection at New York
Historical Society. Used with permission.)
Figure 2: Lizzie Magie’s 1924 patent for The Landlord
Game. (Image Source: Wikimedia commons, public domain.)
The titles of games published during this period (roughly
1860-1920) suggest a rich array of themes and gameplay
options. Here are just a few examples: The Game of
Department Store (McLoughlin Bros 1898) where players
try to run and manage their own store; The New Pretty
Village, a paper house building set whose box features a
mother overseeing her young son and daughter creating a
town together (McLoughlin Bros. 1890); Feast of Flowers:
A Floral Game of Fortune, one of numerous fortune-telling
games (Adams & Co 1869); and the Grandmama’s series
that included trivia, riddle, history and literature games
(McLoughlin Bros.). Courtship games abounded, such as
the Elite Social and Sentimental Conversation Cards, which
allowed players to construct dialogues such as: “Q: Have
you ever been in love? A: Why not? I am human.” Or Q:
“Are you inclined to boss the house? A: Quite the reverse.”
(McLoughlin Brothers 1887; Figure 3) There was a game
integrated into a sewing kit; and even the highly masculine
Rough Rider Ten-Pins included a female cowgirl character
(R. Bliss 1898) [8].

5
While the people represented on the boxes of these games
were generally white and middle class, they spanned both
genders and a wider range of ages than do typical video
game packaging and ads of today. The convention of
showing people playing the game used on the packaging of
the period provides some insight into the way in which the
“technology” of the board games influenced their players
and their role in society. The Sociable Telephone—A Game
for the Smart Set, designed to teach etiquette for the new
communications technology, features a smiling Victorian
lady (Parker Bros. 1902); and the box cover for the stock
market game Commerce shows a woman holding a trading
card high up in the air. (J. Ottoman & Lith 1900) (Figure 3)
Ads for Pillow-Dex, an indoor sport utilizing a kind of
balloon, show Victorian ladies in full regalia knocking the
object into the air. (Parker Bros. 1897) [18] (Figure 4)
While there are currently no videogames based on women’s
sports, the board game industry of over 100 years ago, in
recognition of the game’s popularity among both men and
women, created The Game of Basket Ball with an all-female
cast. (Chaffee & Selchow & McLoughlin Bros. 1898) [8]
Figure 3: Commerce (Ottoman & Lith 1900) (From
the Liman Collection at the New York Historical
Society. Used with permission)
Figure 4: Typical of packaging of the day, Pillow-
Dex shows multiple generations enjoying the game.
(From the Liman Collection at the New York
Historical Society. Used with permission)
6
One of the most intriguing and little-known aspects of the
early board game industry was the predominance of women
in the production process. The following account, from The
Game-Makers, a history of Parker Brothers, sets the stage
for what would come to be called “The Pastime Girls,” after
Pastime Puzzles, the jigsaw division of the company [18]:
There was no set pattern or “die” to make endless
copies. It took the artistic skill of a single operator to
make the cuts, following the impulses that caused a pair
of hands to maneuver plywood creatively against a
rapidly moving French-made blade. To enter the jigsaw
market, the brothers needed operators who had the right
touch to attractively and precisely cut such
puzzles. Fortunately, a local industry held an abundance
of the needed talent. Skill at stitching seemed to mark the
skill needed to cut out a jigsaw puzzle. The New England
region was known for its shoe making, and shoe making
required an abundance of stitchers (who were mainly
women).
These female factory workers, who were expected to cut
1,400 pieces per day, provide an intriguing picture of an
altogether different game development environment:
As a Pastime Girl became more experienced, it was less
exciting to cut pieces at random, and became of matter of
honor to cut some pieces with recognizable
shapes. These became known as figurals – pieces
resembling letters, numbers, animals, common objects,
and symbols. It was not unusual to find a puzzle with an
“H,” a “5,” a fox, a wheelbarrow, and a heart among its
pieces. The novelty of these figurals was deemed
sufficient to apply for a patent (taken out in the name of
the department foreman). [18]
Female factory workers were called into service assembling
and hand-painting board games, such as the re-release of
Mansion of Happiness, which George Parker demanded be
true to the original. As a result of their role in
manufacturing and their ready availability, these “Gibson
Girls” were also recruited for playtesting Parker’s new
inventions. In a 1905 scrapbook photo
George is seen playing cards with three similarly attired
women from his office – their blouses white and puffy,
their skirts long and pinched at the waist, their hair
neatly piled atop their heads. These ladies exemplified
the “Gibson girl” style, which remained in vogue for
three decades… [18] (Figure 5)

Figure 5: George Parker playtesting a new game with the
“Pastime Girls.” [18]
This is a radically different picture from the typical
playtesting department of today’s videogame industry,
peopled by Mountain DewTM-guzzling young men just out
of high school or college. It is interesting to hypothesize
what today’s videogame industry would look like had its
products been playtested entirely by women. Would Doom
have managed to be published with no female characters, if
at all? Would early video games be romantic, literary,
artistic? Would they revolve around themes such as botany,
fashion, fortunes, life lessons, sociability or sewing? What
greater diversity might have emerged had the game-creators
and testers themselves been more diverse?
THE CULTURAL POSITIONING OF PLAYERS AND PLAY
As many who have been in or adjacent to it since the last
century will attest, the game industry has gone through
several historical phases to arrive at its present hegemonic
power structure, which was not, as some would suggest, a
foregone conclusion. Indeed, the very success of the game
industry, and the dedication of its core players to an
increasingly narrow definition of games and gameplay are
to blame in part for the development of the current situ-
ation. As the game industry has become more successful,
with a few exceptions, it has become more risk-averse, and
more oriented to what it defines as its “core market.”
This core market is often referred to as “hardcore gamers,”
a term that has come to mean not only a person who games,
but also a particular type of person who plays particular
types of games. This gamer persona has become “ground
zero” from the perspective of game design and marketing,
and is taken by industry as the “de facto” target demo-
graphic for its goods. It is characterized by an adolescent
male sensibility that transcends physical age and embraces
highly stylized graphical violence, male fantasies of power
and domination, hyper-sexualized, objectified depictions of
women, and rampant racial stereotyping and discrimination.
Co-author Fullerton has astutely referred to this male gamer
persona as “the third gender.” Although this is not meant in
a literal sense, it points to the fact that the game industry
7
has constructed an entirely new fictional variation of
Simone De Beauvoir’s subjective male, one which may
have as little to do with the majority of men as it does with
women. De Beauvior’s argument of the male subjective
position as normative and central, and the female position
as “other,” as object [3], has changed significantly in many
respects of society since the time of her writing in the
1950s. However, as “gamers,” women still inhabit a
“masculine universe:”
Sometimes the "feminine world" is contrasted with the
masculine universe, but [women…] form an integral part
of the group which is governed by males and in which
they have a subordinate place. [3]
While the third gender has some relationship to what Lars
Konzack describes as the rise of “The Third Culture,” that
of the “Geek,” it differs in a few significant respects. The
“Geek” described by Konzack implies counter-culture, as
characterized by The Lord of the Rings and Star Trek fan
culture, Live-Action Role Playing Games (LARPs), MUDs
and MOOs; he further points out that women are actively
contributing to the third culture as both authors and partici-
pants, notably in LARPs, cosplay, fan fiction communities,
as well as establishing the Game Grrls phenomenon and
female fan networks. [13] Conversely, mainstream gamer
culture has been commoditized and commercialized,
packing the shelves of American retailers such as Walmart
and Best Buy and influencing television commercials on
U.S. Cable TV channels such as G4, Spike TV and Comedy
Central. Far from counter-culture Geekdom, the “gamer” is
a self-fulfilling prophecy, a highly commoditized market
demographic that follows precisely the pattern dictated by
the industry by which it has been constructed.
This third gender can be epitomized by a conversation
between Pearce and an executive of a major game com-
pany. In response to the recommendation from his
marketing director that he speak to her about creating
games for girls, he quipped: “Our job is to take lunch
money away from 14-year-old boys.” Pearce found this
characterization equally insulting to both boys and girls, but
exhibited in particular a manipulative, cynical and
exploitive position toward its treasured target market.
During that same visit, Pearce observed a group of said
lunchless 14-year-old boys, who, the executive gloated,
were conducting playtesting for the firm for free. [20]
Playtesters are indeed a major part of the perpetuation of
the Hegemony of Play. The entry level position on the game
board of a career in videogames, the criteria for being a
playtester is to be a “gamer;” anyone who does not fall into
the conventional category, gender notwithstanding, is by
definition ineligible. In other words, “non-gamers (i.e. those
not of the third gender) need not apply.”
A number of designers and authors, the majority of whom
are women, have commented upon the Hegemony of Play.
Among them are Brenda Laurel [15], as well as Sheri
Grainer Ray [7]. T.L. Taylor [23], [24] Mary Flanagan [6]
and the editors and contributors to the collections From
Barbie to Mortal Kombat [2] and Beyond Barbie and
Mortal Kombat [12]. Nina Huntemann in her lecture Play
Like a Man, points out that the culture and representations
of video games are as damaging to men as they are to
women:

These games, which utilize the cutting edge of computer

technology, send very particular messages about what it
means to be a man. Significantly, the overwhelming
lesson about masculinity is that violence is the preferred
means for accomplishing goals, resolving conflict and
Figure 6: Examples of video magazine game advertisements.
even for creating and maintaining interpersonal
relationship with women. [10]
Representation of women is symptomatic of a much larger
problem: the games themselves are unwelcoming to those
She also points out that U.S. video games are predominately
not considered “gamers.” Indeed in many respects the
advertised on TV with a majority male viewers: World
digital playground is shut off to “minority” players entirely,
Wresting Federation and the SciFi Channel (60% male)
whether in terms of game creation, game technologies, or
being just two examples, as well as gaming magazines such
game play, whether merely in terms of creating domains
as Computer Gaming World and Electronic Gaming
that are exclusively male, or through discriminating or
Monthly, whose readership is 5% or less female. [10] Many
alienating practices of players themselves.
videogame advertisements tend to disenfranchise and
alienate women, further contributing to the self-fulfilling
HOPE FOR THE FUTURE
prophecy that “women don’t play games.” Looking at the
While at this particular historical moment, the Hegemony of
examples featured in Figure 6, one scarcely wonders why.
Play is the dominant force in the cultural production of
games, we are beginning to see signs of subtle but tectonic
shifts. This paper was written on the heels of the console
frenzy of Christmas 2006, also at a time when the Internet
has afforded an alternative distribution channel whose
impact is only beginning to be understood. Sony and
Microsoft placed their bets on the fervent loyalty of
“gamers” in search of higher polygon counts of the same
fare with their Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 repsectively. the
number 3 console maker is staging a quiet revolution. Few
paid notice to the re-branding of the “Gameboy” to the
“DS” that took place in 2004. Yet advertising campaigns, in
addition to the name-change, showed Nintendo setting its
sights on a new population of players. (Figure 7) With the
release of its new Wii console system,, Nintendo has stated
openly and unabashedly, and demonstrated with both its
new product development efforts and advertising
campaigns, that it intends to diverge from the “path of least
resistance” and follow in the footsteps of George Parker to
return game-playing to a more inclusive activity that
embraces diverse interests and embraces the whole family.

8

Figure 7: A French ad
campaign for the DS Lite.
With the release of games such as Brain Age, Nintendogs
and Elektroplankton for the DS, and a whole new interface
paradigm along with a range of new game concepts for the
Wii, it’s clear that Nintendo is moving away from its
competitors to open previously untapped markets. The Wii,
originally called “Revolution,” may in fact truly represent
one; it may be as significant as the Model T Ford in
creating “videogames for the people.” Recent Wii
advertising campaigns harkening back to board game
packaging of old show a diverse array of players engaging
primarily with each other, rather than screenshots showing
off graphics, as is the common practice with other systems.
(Figure 7) Nintendo, once the undisputed giant of the game
industry, has turned its back seat position in the Hegemony
of Play into an asset. Rather than racing to create the
fanciest graphics with the same old game mechanics,
Nintendo has bet on new audiences and accessible game
play, cultivating an audience of girls, women, adults and
Baby Boomers, in other words, everyone except the
“gamer” demographic described above.
Figure 7: Assorted pre-release ads for the Nintendo Wii.
It may turn out to be a pretty good bet, as Nintendo is the
only one of the three console companies currently turning a
profit on its new system. [22] Nintendo has even taken the
unprecedented step of setting up a booth at the annual
9
convention of the American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP), boldly breaking barriers of both age and gender.
[14] With an estimated 70 million Baby Boomers moving
towards retirement, it’s clear that Nintendo hopes to attract
new markets beyond the traditional “gamer.” And, while
Nintendo is nothing if not entrenched in the game industry,
having built much of it, the release of these innovative new
products and marketing strategies speaks to a changing
vision of play that is both inclusive and, apparently,
profitable [22].
CONCLUSION
Earlier, we asked why it was that video games do not make
more money, why it was that they have been unable to
reach the wider audiences of traditional and classic games.
Having explored several aspects of the multilayered power
structures, environmental, technological and cultural, that
have dominated the development of the digital game
industry, we hope that we have taken a first step to a
broader understanding of how games in general, and digital
video games in particular, need not cater to a hypothetical
niche audience of “gamers.”
We are all gamers, and by looking back at earlier models of
games and play, as well as critiquing both exclusionary
production processes and cultural stereotypes of “gamers”
and “non-gamers” we can create a non-hegemonic game
industry that provides playful products which appeal to both
men and women, children and adults, and players of all
races, ages and personal play styles. Far from being a
commercial death knell to the video game industry, such a
focus can actually serve to expand the game market to be
more diverse, inclusive and welcoming across a broader
demographic range.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, C. The Long Tail. Wired Magazine,
October 2004.
2. Cassell, J. and Jenkins, H. (eds.) From Barbie to
Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games. The MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
3. De Beauvoir, S. The Second Sex. Random House, New
York NY, 1952.
4. DeKoven, B. The Well-Played Game: A Player’s
Philosophy. Anchor Books, New York, NY 1978.
5. ESA. (2006). Essential Facts about the Computer and
Video Game Industry. Entertainment Software Association.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.php
6. Flanagan, M. Playculture: developing a feminist game
design. Ph.D. Thesis, SMARTlab Centre, Central Saint
Martins College of Art and Design, London, UK, 2005.
7. Graner Ray, S. Gender Inclusive Game Design. Charles
River Media, Revere MA, 2003.
 8. Hofer, M. The Games We Played: The Golden Age of
Board and Table Games. Princeton Architectural Press,
Princeton NJ, 2003.
9. Huntemann, N. B. (2001). "Beyond Ms. Pac-Man:
Gender in Contemporary Video Games." The 5th Annual
Critical Issues in Communication Series sponsored by the
Department of Communication, Westfield State College,
Westfield, MA (March 27, 2001).
http://www.mediacritica.net/lectures/lectures.html
10. Huntemann, N. B. (2004). Lectures on Media Literacy.
http://www.mediacritica.net/lectures/lectures.html"Play
Like a Man: Understanding Video Game Violence."
Dartmouth College, Hanover NH (January 23, 2004).
http://www.mediacritica.net/lectures/lectures.html
11. IGDA. (2005). Game Developer Demographics: An
Exploration of Workforce Diversity. Special report
commissioned by the International Game Developers
Association, October 2005.
http://www.igda.org/diversity/report.php
12. Kafai, Y. B., Heeter, C., Denner, J., and Sun, J. Y.
Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on
Gender and Computer Games. The MIT Press, Cambridge
MA, 2007 (in press.)
13. Konzack, L. (2006). “Geek Culture: The 3rd Counter-
Culture.” Presented at Fun ‘n Games 2006, June 26–28,
2006, Preston, England.
14. Kornreich, L. (2007). A Nintendo for Grandma. Time
Magazine Online. Wednesday, Jan. 03, 2007.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1573749,00.html
15. Laurel, B. Utopian Entrepreneur. The MIT Press,
Cambridge MA, 2001.
16. Ludica. “Getting girls into the game: Towards a
Virtuous Cycle,” in Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat:
New Perspectives on Gender and Computer Games. The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008 (in press.)
10
View publication stats
17. Marriott, M. “Fighting Women Enter the Arena, No
Holds Barred,” in The New York Times (May 15, 2003)
18. Orbanes, P. E. The Game Makers: The Story of Parker
Brothers from Tiddley Winks to Trivial Pursuit. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston MA, 2004.
19. Opie, I. and Opie, P. Children’s Games in Street and
Playground. Oxford University Press, London UK, 1969.
20. Pearce, C. The Interactive Book: A Guide to the
Interactive Revolution. Macmillan Technical Publishers,
Indianapolis IN, 1997.
21. Shenk, D. The Immortal Game: A History of Chess.
New York: Doubleday, New York NY, 2006.
22. Surowiecki, J. (2006). “In Praise of Third Place.” The
New Yorker. (December 4, 2006)
23. Taylor, T.L. Intentional Bodies: Virtual Environments
and the Designers Who Shape Them," International
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol.19, No.1, 25-34,
24. Taylor, T.L. ““Whose Game Is This Anyway?”:
Negotiating Corporate Ownership in a Virtual World” in F.
Mäyrä (ed.), Computer Games and Digital Cultures
Conference Proceedings, Tampere University Press,
Tampere Finalnd, 2002.
25. Terlecki, M. S. and Newcombe, N. S. “How Important
Is the Digital Divide? The Relation of Computer and
Videogame Usage to Gender Differences in Mental
Rotation Ability” in Sex Roles, 53, 5-6 (September 2005),
433-441.
26. Vance, M. Casual Online Gamer Study. Digital
Marketing Services for America Online, January 2004.
25. Yalom, M. The Birth of the Chess Queen: A History.
HarperCollins, New York NY, 2004.